On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 16:23, Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:35 AM Iñaki Ucar <iucar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 00:08, Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 22:06 Iñaki Ucar <iucar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 20:58, Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > This thread is serving as a source of requirements (although it has meandered dramatically away from that) >> >> >> >> When I first read the post, my thought was: wow, what a convoluted and >> >> abstruse way of saying "we want to abandon Pagure". Probably this >> >> wasn't your intent, but that's what I got. And given the reactions, >> >> other people too. >> > >> > The linked blog to the ODF is very explicit that Pagure is one of the 3 forge options we are considering. I can't stress enough that it's a viable choice and ultimately what we opt for will come down to an analysis driven by the requirements gathered. I'm unsure how the blog has been interpreted any other way but hopefully this clears it up. >> >> The ODF is very explicit in the problem statement, and it specifically >> and clearly says that: >> >> 1. Pagure does not align with CPE. > > Correct and it's why we said this line, which you might have missed: > "While we can make exceptions to the mission statement, we first need to know why we should consider a specific exception." I didn't miss it, I was obviously cherry-picking, but the point was to argue why this thread "meandered dramatically away from" the initial purpose: if that was my initial feeling at first reading, probably that was the case for others. > CPE has not committed a team to it in over a year, we do state that as a driving factor to why we want to engage in this conversation but your assumption here is based on a particular outcome that sees Pagure not chosen. If Pagure is chosen, we will commit a team. We are very clear on that. It wasn't so clear to me, but good to know. > Tell me what you do and how you interact with a forge? That's the point of this exercise. Those with the most complex workflows would provide most value here. I only maintain a few simple packages at src.fp, and most of my work is in Copr. However, I would say that integration with FAS should be a requirement. Owning the development of the specific tool (whether a forge or not) is not a must, in principle, but it's a good thing IMO. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that was one of the drivers e.g. to develop Copr instead of going for OBS. Iñaki _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
